This number is actually up since we printed these posters.It's 19,441.

The "journalist" did not call me for comment. But they called every one of my adversaries. The writer calls me anti-Muslim. Frankly, I find that very islamophobic. By calling me anti-Muslim, the writer of the article implies that every Muslim is a jihadi who wants to impose sharia and "eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within and sabotage its miserable house."

The billboard wars continue at Metro North train stations where now a third group has launched a campaign. The controversy began in July when an anti-Israel group named the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine (COPIP) posted anti-Israel billboards at Westchester train stations. The posters contended that Israel had taken Palestinian land and turned the Palestinians into refugees — and some called them “grossly distorted” and “misleading.”

[…]

Now the American Freedom Defense Initiative has entered the fray and inflamed those on both sides of the conflict. The new billboard, which is posted at the Scarsdale Train Station, reads, “*19,250 Deadly Islamic Attacks Since 9/11/01 *and counting. Not Islamophobia, It’s Islamorealism.”

John Harris, a Scarsdale resident and Chair of the N.Y. Chapter of the AntiDefamation League said, “It’s unfortunate that some people are trying to reduce the difficult issues in the Middle East to slogans on billboards. The latest Westchester ads by American Freedom Defense Initiative, a group headed by the anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller, are offensive and inflammatory. Being pro-Israel doesn’t mean being anti-Muslim and anti-Arab. Suspecting a “jihadist” motivation by everyone who follows Islam contributes to an atmosphere where hatred and discrimination are easily justified. Geller has a First Amendment right to spread her views, but she does Israel no service by her bigoted attacks on all Islam. The ADL hopes that our Muslim neighbors recognize that Geller’s campaign reflects the thinking of a very small minority in the Jewish community and trust that they also understand, as do we, the dangers posed by extremists in all of our faiths.”

Last year the American Freedom Defense Initiative proposed posting an ad on city buses that read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” and then between two Stars of David had the words, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The MTA rejected the ad on the basis that it violated its prohibition on messages that demean individuals or groups on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or other characteristics.

However, last week U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the ad was political speech as it expressed a pro-Israel perspective, and as such was protected under the First Amendment.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) objected to the advertisement from the anti-Muslim group as “highly offensive and inflammatory,” but said it agreed with a federal judge’s finding that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority was wrong in rejecting it.

“We support the court’s conclusion that the ad is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, yet we still strongly object to both the message and the messenger,” said Ron Meier, ADL New York Regional Director. “We believe these ads are highly offensive and inflammatory. Pro-Israel doesn’t mean anti-Muslim. It is possible to support Israel without engaging in bigoted anti-Muslim and anti-Arab stereotypes.”

Once again the left exposes its hypocrisy and anti-semitism. Funny how the anti-Jewish rhetoric in Muslim media, Islamic school textbooks, and preached in mosques doesn't raise an eyebrow. Silence is sanction of this genocidal rhetoric. Cord Jefferson over at the uber left website, Gawker, has this (Jefferson has no such post, though, on the anti-Israel train and kiosk campaign). How's that anti-semitism working out for ya, Cord?

Is This the Most Offensive Pro-Israel Ad in History?

Yes, it probably is.

Leave it up to Pamela Geller and her dumb old anti-Islam group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, to come up with history's most vile anti-Palestine ad. Last month, a federal judge ruled that New York's MTA had violated the AFDI's First Amendment rights by rejecting the group's ads for city bus placement. That decision prompted the Muni in San Francisco to accept the ads, despite the fact that it has a policy against political advertising. Because what's political about a Jewish organization putting out a bus ad that tacitly calls Palestinians subhuman savages?

The premise of my ad was that a war on innocent civilians is savage. As long as the Palestinian Authority continues its savage policy of fomenting violence, promoting hatred, and teaching Palestinian children to hate, the number of young Muslims willing to blow themselves up or to slit Israeli throats will continue to increase. That is savage. The Palestinian Authority propaganda of Holocaust-denial, calls for the killing of the Jews, and glorification of bloodthirsty jihadis is savage.

Look how tough these Jews are when it comes to going after their own who are brave enough not to hide behind the genocidal rhetoric of the annihilators. Are we to understand that these liberal Jews sanction the jihad war on innocent civilians in Israel?

Where are their knee-jerk condemnations of the vile anti-Semitism on college campuses, in the Occupy movement, and in Muslim media? Why have they never condemned the anti-semitism in the quran? It incites the Muslim world to Jewish genocide? One Jew calls out annihilationists and this is their reaction? Even the Judenrat didn't protect and defend the Nazis' war on the Jews. They went along, but they didn't advance and promote it. This is just sick.

The Bay Area Jewish Community Condemns Anti-Muslim Muni Bus Ads pdf hereStatement from the Jewish Community Relations Council and the American Jewish Committee San Francisco

Last week, a new advertisement appeared on Muni buses in San Francisco, placed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The Bay Area’s organized Jewish community takes great offense to the ad’s inflammatory and anti-Muslim language. We are steadfast in our support of Israel and our concern about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism, and steadfast in our opposition to anti- Muslim stereotypes.

We have long been concerned that the repeated appearance of offensive anti-Israel ads would turn our local public transit system into a battleground for the Israeli-Arab conflict; we are no less concerned by offensive anti-Muslim ads. We urge all transit authorities to reassess their policies and to construct advertising policies consistent with laws governing protected speech that preserve public transit as a safe space for all passengers.

It's a staple of enemedia coverage that these ads are "anti-Muslim," but actually the words Islam and Muslim never appear in the ads. Nor does the ad say that all Muslims are savages — again, contrary to media myth. The premise of my ad was that a war on innocent civilians is savage. And that is a fact. As long as the Palestinian Authority continues its savage policy of fomenting violence, promoting hatred, and teaching Palestinian children to hate, the number of young Muslims willing to blow themselves up or to slit Israeli throats will continue to increase. That is savage. The Palestinian Authority propaganda of Holocaust-denial, calls for the killing of the Jews, and glorification of bloodthirsty jihadis is savage.

Tell me again why the word "savage" is inaccurate. The targeting of civilians is savage. The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage. The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage. The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family was savage. The Munich Olympic massacre was savage. The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage. The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage. The vicious Jew-hatred behind this genocide is savage. The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab media is savage. The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state is savage. The list is endless.

But note that this is the only press release the JCRC has issued in all of 2012. These dhimmis have nothing whatsoever to say about the genocidal rhetoric broadcast on official "Palestinian" Authority TV on a regular basis. They have nothing to say about Obama's ongoing harassment of Israel. The increasing levels of anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world? Not a word. The only thing that has moved the JCRC to speak are defiantly and forthrightly pro-Israel ads. The JCRC and AJC are a disgrace.

Supporters of the JCRC and the AJC who genuinely support Israel and the Jewish people should withdraw their support from those organizations — and support AFDI. Help keep these ads running. Contribute here, and get the tee shirts here.

In addition to our pro-Israel ads running in San Francisco, our Islamorealism ads are running in NY. These ads on a NYC Metro train kiosk were destroyed and defaced with this: "Countless acts of terrorism and violence have been committed by Christian extremists. Does this make all Christians terrorists?" As if Christians killed in the name of Jesus as in allahu akbar, but let's not let logic and truth get in the way of propaganda.

Atlas reader Matt just sent this in:

FYI… Your Islamorealism ad at the Hastings – on – Hudson station was vandalized. See the attached picture. Looks like the damage was premeditated; they sliced most of the ad out and left just enough to write their stupid message.

More media blowback on the bus ads. Muslim Brotherhood groups are weighing in as well.

First they were calling on followers to vandalize our bus ads; now genocidal Hamas-linked CAIR is supporting a petition to have the ads pulled (in accordance with the laws of the sharia). CAIR said, "We don't feel comfortable boarding buses that label an entire community savage."

"An entire community?" What community is that, CAIR? What community supports the targeting of innocent civilians? Is Hamas-CAIR saying that all Muslims support the annihilation of Israel? Very revealing, but not surprising. The first paragraph of the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel.

They don't feel comfortable boarding a bus with our ads? Imagine how the Jews feel boarding a bus with homicide bombers. Which bus would you rather board?

If you are out and about in San Francisco, you may have noticed ads on the sides of Muni buses that refer to Israel's enemies as "savages." The ads are raising questions about the kind of advertising public agencies can accept.

The ads read: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad."

The ad has offended some San Franciscans, who have expressed their reactions on Twitter. For example:

Pamela Geller, who purchased the ads, had been waiting for approval from Muni for months, she tells KQED's Aarti Shahani. She says approval came the same day a federal judge ruled that New York City violated Geller's free speech rights by refusing an identical campaign there.

Geller said she bought the ads in response to advertising that called for ending U.S. aid to Israel. "I wanted to counter that message," she said.

Why the word "savage?"

Here's Geller's explanation:

Because any targeting of innocent civilians is savagery. Mothers and children on a bus are targeted, and that is savagery. Kidnapping and murdering is savagery. The U.S. does not conduct war that way, and neither does Israel. Now, there is sometimes the accidental death of civilians, which is far different than the targeting of innocent civilians.

The ads are scheduled to run through the end of the month. But some people would like to stop them sooner.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is supporting a petition to stop the ads. CAIR's San Francisco executive director told Aarti Shahani that she would like Muni to formulate a policy prohibiting hate speech:

We're hearing from members of the community, both Arabs and Muslims and otherwise, like interfaith and civil rights alike, saying, 'We don't feel comfortable boarding buses that label an entire community savage.'

Manhattan district judge Paul A. Engelmayer's decision to allow the ads in New York does not end the possibility of banning such ads, Shahani says, because Engelmayer did not say all such ads must automatically be allowed. Instead he ruled that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's policy was unconstitutional because it appeared to ban speech that impugned some groups and not others.

(H)e even offered examples, like “Southerners are bigots,” “Upper West Siders are elitist snobs,” “Fat people are slobs,” “Blondes are bimbos” and “Lawyers are sleazebags.”

Aarti says the MTC is appealing Engelmayer's decision.

Update at 4:10 p.m: Muni spokesman Paul Rose told Aarti the agency has gotten some complaints about the ad campaign, but that's not unusual. It has never removed ads before the contract to display them ended. Will this be a first?

We understand how this ad might be offensive, but we are limited in what we can do… We're exploring options in light of First Amendment issues, our ad policy and our contractual obligations.

According to CAIR, truth is hate speech. But the United States of America has the first amendment to protect us against you.

Needless to say, the Puff Hos did not call me for comment. They cherry-picked the dhimmi report of Mark Matthews of ABC7 (here). And the links provided for all other coverage of this news story (on the bottom of the article) glaringly omit all Atlas links. Can you say transparent? Jew-haters urging destruction of our ads are linked. I encourage Atlas readers to comment on this piece. The trolls will be out in full force, I can assure you.

Interesting how the media handled the anti-Israel ads versus this "controversy." It does bear noting that this piece is surprisingly tempered for the Huffington Post.

An ad recently placed on a number of city buses in San Francisco has been raising a lot of eyebrows around town. The ad reads, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad."

"The reason I wanted to run these ads was to counter the anti-Israel ads that were running in various cities across the country in New York, in D.C., on San Francisco BART," AFDI co-founder Pamela Gellar told CBS San Francisco. "If I had my way, they'd be in every city in the United States of America and if I can get the funding, that's exactly what's going to happen."

The BART ads to which Geller referred were placed by the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation and ran from late 2010 to early 2011. They directed people to a website pushing for the cessation of U.S. military support for Israel.

Geller, who also runs the popular conservative blog Atlas Shrugs, came to national prominence as one of the leading voices on the right fighting against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"–an Islamic cultural center slated to move into a location in lower Manhattan–that became a hot-button issue in the months leading up to the 2010 mid-term elections.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has rules against hosting ads that are overtly political or "clearly defamatory." While the prohibition on political issues is limited in scope to issues due to be decided by voters in San Francisco, the defamation aspect is a little more dicey.

However, SFMTA's hands were largely tied in choosing whether accept the ad due to a ruling handed down by a federal judge in New York this July. Last year, AFDI attempted to get the same ad placed on buses in New York City. The transit agency there refused, citing its prohibition on "demeaning" ads. The group sued on First Amendment grounds and came out victorious earlier this summer.

The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court, ruled that the rejected ad was "not only protected speech–it is core political speech," expressing a "pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict" and implicitly calling "for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict."

As such, the judge held, the ad "is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment."

Muni approved AFDI's ad on the same day the judge issued his ruling regarding New York's transit system and it seems unlikely that SFMTA, currently facing a $17 million budget hole this year alone, would reject the ad and surely face an expensive, uphill legal battle.

SFMTA did not immediately respond to request for comment from The Huffington Post.

Muni does have a history of running controversial ads. Late last year, after an ad attempting to humanize sex workers was rejected by two outdoor display ad companies as too risque for their billboards, the campaign ultimately found a home on 50 Muni buses.

Watch CBS's coverage of the controversial Muni ads in the video below:

Mark Matthews of ABC News (KGO TV), San Francisco, did a news report on our pro-Israel bus ads that just hit the streets. In it, Matthews proselytizes for Islam, redefines jihad, and makes a bit of a fool of himself. He falls over himself to get the Islamic perspective, but runs no counter to their claims. He spent a good deal of time during our interview arguing about the word "savage." I explained that any war on innocent civilians was savagery. Matthews countered that both the US and Israel have killed innocent civilians and I shot back that the US and Israel never target innocent civilians, ever. The deaths of innocent civilians are the tragic consequence of war sometimes. The war on Israel, OTOH, is a war on innocent civilians. Needless to say, that never made it onto the broadcast interview.

You can tweet Matthews @MatthewsABC7. He has already blocked me after I tweeted this:

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency has a policy against political ads on its buses, but an ad being displayed now comes pretty close. The ad says, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad."

James Ashburn was surprised when he saw his bus roll up with the ad on the side. "It really struck me as an inappropriate ad to be on a city bus," he said. Ashburn took a picture of the ad and sent it to ABC7 News via uReport. He thought the ad crossed a line. "No matter what side you're on, you should not describe your opponent as a savage," he said.

The pro-Israel ad was purchased by the American Freedom Defense Initiative run by Pamela Geller. "The reason I wanted to run these ads was to counter the anti-Israel ads that were running in various cities across the country in New York, in D.C., on San Francisco BART," she said. If you don't remember any anti-Israel ads on BART, that's understandable. It has been a year since an ad ran calling on the U.S. to cut military aid to Israel. "It was a fallacious and dangerous message and it had to be countered with the truth," Geller said.

The truth being in the eye of the beholder, ABC7 News showed the ad to Muslim's going into Friday prayers at a San Francisco mosque. Adam Kennard called it propaganda. Ted Oriqat pointed out that the ad distorts the meaning of jihad. "Jihad, it doesn't mean killing people or anything like that," he said. And Oriqat is correct. Jihad means "struggle" and is frequently used as in "striving towards the way of God."

Matthews says "truth is in the eye of the beholder." Wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Truth is the recogniton of reality. Any war against innocent civilians is savage.

"No matter what side you're on, you should not describe your opponent as a savage,"

The bus message didn't sit very well with the city system in New York. They refused to run them and Gellen took the transit authority to court. "And interestingly enough, the day that I won, was the day that San Francisco approved my ads that are currently running on your buses," Geller said.

A coincidence? Not according to Muni's spokesman Paul Rose. "In this specific case, litigation was brought to this organization and the transit agency lost," he told ABC7 News. So, the buses with the signs will continue to roll for at least the next four weeks. "If I had my way, they'd be in every city in the United States of America and if I can get the funding, that's exactly what's going to happen," Geller says.

Asked how this particular ad is not considered political in light of Muni's no-politics policy, Rose struggled to answer. However, the legal action and the fact that the New York MTA has already lost in court have had an impact.

Both the media and Muslim propagandists keep telling us that "Jihad" simply means "struggle," and that it often refers to "struggling" against one's own desires. They like to pretend that Muhammad didn't tell his followers which type of "Jihad" he had in mind when he commanded them to wage Jihad:

Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’”

So the best "Jihad," according to Muhammad, involves bloodshed. This sort of Jihad is so essential to Islam that a Muslim is said to be "deficient" if he doesn't have visible wounds on his body (as a result of fighting non-Muslims):

Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”

Indeed, Muhammad told his followers that Muslims who want to live in peace are hypocrites:

Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”

For more on the journalistic integrity (or lack thereof) of ABC News, see my video "Whitewashing Islam":

The aggressively uber-left Israeli newspaper has written a piece on our recent win in the landmark decision of AFDI vs MTA. Of course they cite all the usual uber-left suspects as legitimate sources (like the AFDI Threat to Freedom SPLC and the dhimmi Jewicidal ADL) to smear my organization, but that doesn't surprise you, does it? The media always hunts for quotes from subversives to smear our work. Have they ever sought quotes extolling our organization for our dedication to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, individual rights, and the rights of women and non-Muslims under the Sharia? Ever? Get real.

Did they ask me for comment on these smears from the left that they published without any critical examination? Again, get real.

These old Stalinists never change. *yawn*

Haaretz even shows the wrong ad. The precedent-setting legal win is about our pro-Israel ad (below), "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, Defeat Jihad." Instead, they show a silly ad showing two children hugging, obviously a Jewish boy and a Muslim boy wearing the keffiyeh (the war scarf and icon of Islamic Jew-hatred). Ridiculous. What next? A child of the Shoah hugging a Nazi SS youth?

What I did learn from Cohen's article is that the Jew-hater, Henry Clifford, who is running the anti-Jewish ads, plans to expand his campaign to posters in transit stations in Boston and Providence, Rhode Island. Help us counter his lies and propaganda with the facts. Donate to our pro-Israel ads here.

"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Coming to an ad near you" Debra Nussbaum Cohen, Haaretz July 30, 2012

A messaging war over Israel-Palestine is being waged in public spaces across the U.S.

But the advertising duel over Israel may come to an end in New York City if the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates buses, subways and the Metro-North trains,

decides to revamp its policy and stop accepting political, or “viewpoint,” advertisements – a shift currently under consideration, according to agency sources.

The MTA is considering changing its policy after losing a case in federal court for rejecting an anti-Muslim, pro-Israel advertisement. The judge ruled on July 20 that the MTA violated the First Amendment rights of Pamela Geller and her group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, when it rejected its advertisement reading, “In Any War between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man.” Lower down it says, "Support Israel; Defeat Jihad," with Stars of David on either side.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed Geller's group and her blog, Atlas Shrugs, hate groups. The MTA formally rejects an advertisement about once a year for not meeting its advertising guidelines, said spokesman Aaron Donovan, but this was the first time in 15 years it rejected one for being demeaning.

In a statement, the MTA said it “is evaluating its existing advertising standards in light of the court’s ruling.”

Charles Moerdler, a member of the MTA board, said the organization has “been carefully studying this for the past week or more to come up with some explanation for where we are and where we ought to be going” on accepting advertisements.

Moerdler, a Holocaust survivor and partner in the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, has prepared a 14-page memorandum related to political advertising and said he is waiting for the right time to present it to the MTA board.

The Anti-Defamation League called Geller’s advertisement “highly offensive and inflammatory” but agreed with the judge that the MTA was wrong to reject it. “We support the court’s conclusion that this is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, yet we still strongly object to both the message and the messenger,” said Ron Meier, the ADL's New York regional director.

Geller, who gained widespread attention for zealously opposing the mosque near Ground Zero, vowed to move forward with her advertisements.

“My ads will be up, whether they’re up in September 2012 or September 2013," she said. "I will pursue that case to the Supreme Court."

That is exactly where Geller's case, or one like it, it bound to end up, according to Marc Stern, associate general counsel for the American Jewish Committee and an expert in Constitutional law. The issue of advertising and public transportation “will eventually have to be resolved by the Supreme Court because the [lower courts'] rulings are all over the map,” he said.

The Haaretz writer spent a lot of time with Jew-hater Henry Clifford, who is running the antisemitic ads on NYC train kiosks, but she never mentioned out response to libelous and fallacious ads going up next week on NYCs Metro North stations:

After the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) ran a series of anti-Israel ads in the New York subways, my group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, submitted a pro-Israel ad, which the MTA summarily rejected. We sued on First Amendment grounds – and last Friday, in a case with important free speech implications far beyond our campaign, we won.

Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote a wonderful, brilliant opinion, establishing a precedent that will do much to protect free speech all over the country. The money quote from Friday’s ruling was when Engelmayer explained that “the AFDI ad is not only protected speech – it is core political speech. The ad expresses AFDI’s pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and implicitly calls for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict. The AFDI ad is, further, a form of response to political ads on the same subject that have appeared in the same space. As such, the AFDI ad is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.”

Indeed, this is a great victory for the First Amendment. The freedom of speech has been increasingly threatened in the U.S. in recent years – the left and Islamic supremacists are doing all they can to rule honest discussion of Islamic jihad violence and Jew-hatred out of the realm of acceptable public discourse. Judge Engelmayer has struck a huge blow against this sinister authoritarian effort and for the freedom of speech that is the cornerstone of all our freedoms.

It is a super opinion. Illustrating the MTA’s inconsistency, Engelmayer noted that “under MTA’s no-demeaning standard, an advertiser willing to pay for the privilege is today at liberty to place a demeaning ad on the side or back of a city bus that states any of the following: ‘Southerners are bigots’; ‘Upper West Siders are elitist snobs’; ‘Fat people are slobs’; ‘Blondes are bimbos’; ‘Lawyers are sleazebags’; or ‘The store clerks at Gristedes are rude and lazy.’”

Engelmayer concluded: “Whatever weight might be assigned to the governmental interest in banning demeaning speech on the exterior of New York City buses on an even-handed basis, there is no good reason for protecting some individuals and groups, but not others, from such abuse. MTA’s no- demeaning standard, as currently formulated, is, therefore, inconsistent with the First Amendment.”

He is right. Disallowing a pro-Israel ad was clearly a politically correct, politically motivated denial of free speech. “At the heart of the First Amendment,” wrote Engelmayer, “is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.” That free flow of ideas is just what the left and Islamic supremacists want to suppress, and the tools in the MTA eagerly did their bidding. Judge Engelmayer’s decision is crucial not just for AFDI and the MTA, but for the freedom of speech in general. The AFDI case has set a key legal precedent for the freedom of speech and won a great victory for the First Amendment.

“This is an important case with serious constitutional ramifications for free speech not only in New York, but across the country,” said Robert Muise, co-founder of American Freedom Law Center and, along with David Yerushalmi, one of the lawyers who fought and won this case for freedom. “This opinion is extremely well-written, well-considered and will go down as an important decision protecting free speech on government property.”

The enemedia’s response has been predictable. With the exception of the New York Times and New York 1, not one of these tools called me for comment. Gothamist said I was “crowing” over the victory. I am “crowing”? These tools should be crowing. It’s their victory, too. And note the Huffington Post’s headline: “Anti-Islam Bus Ads OK’d by Judge,” even though neither Muslims nor Islam are ever mentioned in the ad. You can practically hear the Puff Ho’s head exploding in its moronic and inaccurate report. They cannot bring themselves to call the ad what it is: pro-Israel (which even the New York Times did). Funny how the media can’t bring themselves to say “pro-Israel.” It’s like the silver cross to Dracula. Repeat after me: Pro-Israel. Pro-Israel. Pro-Israel. C’mon, you can do it.

Likewise predictable has been the reaction from Islamic supremacists. One report noted: “Most Muslim-Americans have lashed out at proposed advertisements be placed on New York City buses that call enemies of Israel ‘savages.’ Muslims argue this is hate speech and they should be removed immediately.”

Any war that targets innocent civilians is savage. Period. These “irate” Muslims sanction jihad and Jew-hatred. That is what they are saying. I never see U.S. Muslims marching against jihad. Or supporting Israel’s right to exist. Where are they? Instead, they issue threats if our ads go up. CUNY student Omar Makram Radwan said that if our ads go up, “there will be widespread anger and protests against what to almost all common person is blatant hate speech against Muslims and Muslim-Americans.” (Yet you’ll notice that “Muslim” was not in the ad – neither was “Islam.”)

We won the free speech battle, but the war isn’t even close to over. Your contribution will get these ads up in New York and California. It is critical in the war of ideas. The enemedia is at war with the truth. Help us fight in the information battle-space.

On Friday, we won a huge victory for the freedom of speech. A Federal Judge ruled that New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority had violated our First Amendment rights by not allowing us to run our pro-Israel ad.

Now we can run our pro-freedom, pro-Israel, anti-jihad ads all over the country – if only we have the resources to do so.

All over the country, we can tell the simple truth that the media fears to tell: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Defeat jihad. Support Israel.”

The First Amendment still exists, even in this age of Obama, and Muslims aren’t a protected class in the U.S. – at least not yet.

This is great news. But these ads aren’t cheap. We are running these ads in New York, California, DC and NY's Metro-North. The least expensive run for ads in the New York City subway system is $10,000.

Islamic supremacists and Hamas front groups, funded by unsavory, shadowy figures overseas, are running anti-Israel hate ads all over the country. We intend to match them city for city. The court ruling shows that we have just as much right to tell the truth as they do to spread their lies, and we intend to do it.

We’re also continuing our lawsuit against Detroit’s SMART transit system for refusing to run our ads offering help to Muslims who want to leave Islam but are threatened for doing so: we already won that case, but Detroit’s dhimmi authorities still won’t put our ads up.

Everywhere they restrict our First Amendment rights, we will sue. Everywhere. And everywhere we win – and we will continue to win – we will put up our ads in defense of truth, freedom and human rights.

But the costs continue to mount. We do so much with so little. We are not backed by wealthy foundations or philanthropists, and do not have a massive donor base. We depend solely on you: on individuals who value the freedom of the individual and the dignity of the human person. Without your support, we would not have been able to get this far. Now that we have won the battle for free speech, please help us follow through and place as many ads as we can.

Any war that targets innocent civilians is savage. Period. These "irate" Muslims sanction jihad and Jew-hatred. That is what they are saying.

I never see US Muslims marching against jihad. Or supporting Israel's right to exist. Where are they? Instead, they issue threats if our ads go up. And, brother, are they going up.

Radwan and others tell Bikyamasr.com that if the ads go up, “there will be widespread anger and protests against what to almost all common person is blatant hate speech against Muslims and Muslim-Americans.”

Muslim Americans have a strong role in the US, but anti-Islamic sentiment continues.

NEW YORK: Most Muslim-Americans have lashed out at proposed advertisements be placed on New York City buses that call enemies of Israel “savages.” Muslims argue this is hate speech and they should be removed immediately.

But a federal judge in Manhattan, Paul Engelmayer, said he agree with blogger Pamela Geller that her First Amendment right allows the ads to continue, sparking much concern that Islamophobia in the United States is being allowed to grow and has found support in the judiciary.

“If we decided to put ask for ads saying Israel and Jews were savages, we would be protested and the court would agree with them that they are hate speech so I don’t see the difference here,” said Muslim-American and CUNY student Omar Makram Radwan.

The Pakistani-American, who has lived all his life in New York City, told Bikyamasr.com that “this sort of hate speech is now being tolerated by judges and as Ramadan hits it is very unfortunate. People are angry.”

The judge, however, said that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was wrong in rejecting Geller’s ads.

Geller is the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. She publishes a blog called Atlas Shrugged that warns of growing “Islamization” in the United States and around the world.

The MTA rejected the group’s bus ad, arguing that advertisements should not “demean individuals or groups based on race, religion or other protected categories.”

Engelmayer, in his injunction on Friday, barred the MTA from enforcing its own standards. The case is to be heard again on August 29, and could force the MTA to allow the ads to be placed in public view.

Radwan and others tell Bikyamasr.com that if the ads go up, “there will be widespread anger and protests against what to almost all common person is blatant hate speech against Muslims and Muslim-Americans.”

"M.T.A. Violated Rights of Group," Judge Says By Benjamin Weiser, New York Times, July 20, 2012

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Friday that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority violated the First Amendment rights of a pro-Israel group when it rejected an advertisement the group wanted to place on city buses on grounds that they contained demeaning language.

An ad from the American Freedom Defense Initiative that was rejected by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, had proposed an ad that said, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”

Then, between two Stars of David, the ad said: “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The transportation authority said the ad violated its prohibition on ads that demeaned individuals or groups on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin and five other specific categories. The group was given the opportunity to revise the ad, but it refused, and claimed in a lawsuit that the agency’s “no demeaning” language restriction was unconstitutional.

The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court, ruled that the rejected ad was “not only protected speech — it is core political speech,” expressing a “pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict” and implicitly calling “for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict.”

As such, the judge held, the ad “is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.”

Pamela Geller, executive director of the group that sought to place the ad, called the decision “a victory for freedom-loving people.”

Ms. Geller is an outspoken blogger and critic of Islam whose group ran ads on city buses in 2010 that opposed construction of an Islamic center near ground zero.

Judge Engelmayer said he would delay the effect of his order for 30 days, to allow the transportation authority to consider its appellate options and alternatives to the current rule.

Aaron Donovan, a transportation spokesman, said on Friday that the authority was reviewing the decision, and that it was also “evaluating its existing advertising standards in light of the court’s ruling.”

A statement by the authority also cited portions of the opinion, including one in which the judge said that “the court does not impugn in the slightest” the agency’s motives in devising its “no-demeaning” standard or applying it to the proposed ad.

“Quite the contrary,” Judge Engelmayer wrote, noting that testimony and evidence in the case showed that the authority “has aspired to hold ads on public buses to a standard of civility.

“Its goal of preventing ads on city bus exteriors from being used as a medium for abuse and division in this diverse metropolis is entirely laudable,” the judge wrote. “It appears likely that M.T.A. drafted the standard in question with an eye toward the groups it felt most likely to be targeted by demeaning ads, without adequately considering the First Amendment implications.”

The judge said the authority had “reasonably read” the ad as referring to Muslims as “savages.”

But, he added, it was “well settled that, where a violation of the First Amendment is concerned, the government’s benign, even noble, intentions are no cure.”

The judge noted that the authority’s rule barred only ads that contained language that demeaned on the basis of the nine listed categories, which included ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. Outside that list, the judge noted, the rule would permit demeaning ads.

He even offered examples, like “Southerners are bigots,” “Upper West Siders are elitist snobs,” “Fat people are slobs,” “Blondes are bimbos” and “Lawyers are sleazebags.”

Under the standard, he wrote, an ad could even accuse a private citizen of being a child abuser or running a Ponzi scheme.

“Whatever weight might be assigned to the governmental interest in banning demeaning speech on the exterior of New York City buses on an evenhanded basis,” Judge Engelmayer said, “there is no good reason for protecting some individuals and groups, but not others, from such abuse.”

The “no-demeaning” standard, he said, was, “therefore, inconsistent with the First Amendment.”

The group whose pro-Israel ad was rejected had sought to run it on about 318 city buses for four weeks, at a cost of about $25,000, the judge noted.

The ruling came two days after the transportation authority announced that it would sell advertising space on the front of MetroCards. Mr. Donovan said on Friday that the authority “does not intend to open MetroCards to noncommercial advertisements,” a decision that was reached, he said, before Friday’s ruling.

The authority has said in court papers that it received $116.4 million in revenue in 2011 from advertising sold throughout its subway, commuter rail and bus systems; of that, it received $4.65 million from noncommercial advertising, which included political ads.

“M.T.A. is cash-strapped,” the judge wrote. “It regards the money it receives from such ads as an important source of revenue.”

UPDATE: Wall to wall coverage. Free speech has become a novel idea. That is the real story here so infused is our media and culture with the blasphemy laws under the shariua.

A Manhattan judge ruled against the MTA this morning to allow The American Freedom Defense Initiative to post pro-Israel ads that brand Jihadists as “savages.”

The ruling has been almost a year in the making and began when Pamela Geller of AFDI initiated the posting of the ads in response to anti-Israel ads that called for a cessation of U.S. aid to Israel.

At the time, representatives of CBS Outdoor, the MTA’s media management company rejected the ad saying that it “demeans an individual or group of individuals.”

“Federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) restriction on “demeaning” speech was unconstitutional,” read a release from the American Freedom Law Center which represented Geller in court.

“I was thrilled, not just for me but for everybody, its an enourmous victory for freedom. Disallowing the pro-Israel ad was clearly a politically motivated denial of free speech”, Geller said in an interview with The Algemeiner.

“I am going to go and run these these pro-Israel ads,” she said when asked if she was planning to go ahead with their placement. The case however isn’t completely over as, ”it seems the judge gave the MTA 30 days to file an appeal” Geller said, although it is unlikely that the MTA will go ahead with it.

The timing she said, is auspicious, “it’s not lost on me that this comes the day after the slaughter in Bulgaria, the war on the Jews is barbaric and savage.”

Geller also praised the Judge, ”he really did his homework she said, he cited my articles in the ruling, this was a very well considered, well thought out ruling and I think a superb decision. The case set a key legal precedent for the first amendment.”

For the MTA this is the second time in as many weeks that they have attracted attention over Israel related ads. The earlier case concerned anti-Israel ads that were posted this month at 50 metro North stations.

Responding to criticism from the Jewish community, including The Algemeiner the MTA told Fox News, “We do not decide whether to accept or reject a proposed ad based on the viewpoint that it expresses or because the ad might be controversial. The MTA does not endorse the viewpoint expressed in this ad, or any of the ads that it accepts for display.”

Geller's Metro North ad.

Geller says she was approved this morning to run Metro North ads as well, (pictured right) she says she is spending $10,000 on the campaign and they will appear at 50 stations on August 6th.

She did express some concern however that the MTA may look for other ways to ban the ads, ”My fear going forward is that they will issue some form of internal directive that bans political ads,” she concluded.

CBS Outdoor could not immediately be reached for comment on this story.

Reuters provides an example of objective, non-biased journalism, a dying art. Even though AFDI is not based in Sherman Oaks, California, the bulk of this article and its headline show that some journalists can still avoid the Leftist propaganda slogans of "anti-Islam," "anti-Muslim," etc.

NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) – A pro-Israel group must be allowed to place a paid advertisement on New York City public buses that likens Muslims to savages, a U.S. judge ruled on Friday.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan said a 1997 rule by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that barred demeaning language in advertisements was a violation of free speech.

While the rule was well intentioned, the judge found, it had the effect of discriminating against certain advertisers based on the content of their proposed message.

The advocacy group American Freedom Defense Initiative sued the MTA in September 2011 after the transit agency denied its proposed ad.

The ad said: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel/Defeat Jihad." The ad would have been posted on 318 city buses for four weeks, at a cost of about $25,000, the opinion said.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative, based in Sherman Oaks, California, has been one of the most vocal opponents to the planned construction of a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. The group says the prayer center is funded by Islamists and would sully the memory of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"This is a great victory for the First Amendment," the group said on its website. "Disallowing a pro-Israel ad was clearly a politically correct, politically motivated denial of free speech," said Pamela Geller, the group's executive director.

The MTA said in a statement that it was reviewing the opinion and "is evaluating its existing advertising standards in light of the court's ruling."

Citing the 1998 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, New York Magazine v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the judge said the advertising space on public buses should be considered a public forum.

In addition, the judge said that because the ad in question was core political speech, it was entitled to the "highest level of protection under the First Amendment."

"By differentiating between which people or groups can and cannot be demeaned on the exterior of a city bus, MTA's no-demeaning standard … discriminates based on content," the opinion said.

The judge said his preliminary injunction would take effect in 30 days, at which time the MTA would be prevented from enforcing the standard.

The standard bars any ads that "contain … information that demean(s) an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation."

The judge said that while MTA officials had been correct to regard the ad as "demeaning a group of people based on religion (Islam)," the standard itself does allow for demeaning statements on a host of other topics, such as where they live, their job or their political affiliation.

The case is American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 11-cv-6774.

A federal judge ruled Friday that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority violated the First Amendment when it rejected advertisements on city buses describing the enemies of Israel as “savages.”

The transit agency’s prohibition on ads that demean individuals or groups by virtue of race, religion and other characteristics is overly broad, the court found, and represents an unconstitutional limit on political speech.

At issue is an advertisement proposed last year by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, a pro-Israel group that had previously purchased advertising space on subways and buses that touted a “refuge from Islam” and opposed the construction of an Islamic center near the former World Trade Center site.

The MTA declined to publish another ad, which read in part: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” In larger type, the ad declared: “Support Israel Defeat Jihad.”

MTA officials determined — correctly, as U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote in his ruling — that the language in the ad identified Muslims as savages. But the underlying principle of rejecting messages that demean only certain kinds of groups and not others goes against constitutional protections of free speech.

The MTA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.

In a 35-page decision, the judge praised efforts by MTA officials to uniformly apply its rules and said the “goal of preventing ads on city bus exteriors from being used as a medium for abuse and division in this diverse metropolis is entirely laudable.”

Judge Engelmayer ruled that advertising space on the sides of MTA buses represents a “designated public forum” where government agencies have lesser powers to regulate speech. He noted that the MTA’s existing rules are full of holes that would allow many other demeaning generalizations, including harsh characterizations directed at people with certain political beliefs or working for a certain company.

The judge even offered his own examples of offensive advertisements that would be deemed acceptable by the MTA’s current rules, including ”fat people are slobs” and “southerners are bigots.” The word “savages,” at the center of the rejected pro-Israel ad, would have been allowed under the transit agency’s guidelines if it had been applied to “a neighbor, a family, a school, an employer, an employee, a company, a union, a community group, a charity, an interest group, a believer in a cause, or a political foe,” Judge Engelmayer wrote.

The ruling doesn’t preclude the MTA from re-drafting its rules on acceptable advertising language to promote civility while providing for constitutionally protected speech, the judge wrote.

Pamela Geller, the executive director of the pro-Israel group behind the rejected ad and a plaintiff in the case, hailed the ruling on her website as “a great victory for the First Amendment.”

Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan says he agrees with blogger Pamela Geller. He says the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should not have rejected Geller's ad. Geller is the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

[UPDATE BELOW] It's a glorious day for noted Islamaphobe Pamela Geller and the American Freedom Law Center, which filed a lawsuit against the MTA after their pro-Israel advertisement was rejected. You'll recall that Geller and her associates wanted to …

The ruling has been almost a year in the making and began when Pamela Geller of AFDI initiated the posting of the ads in response to anti-Israel ads that called for a cessation of US aid to Israel. At the time, representatives of CBS Outdoor, …

Pamela Geller, executive director of the group that sought to place the ad, called the decision “a victory for freedom-loving people.” Ms. Geller is an outspoken blogger and critic of Islam whose group ran ads on city buses in 2010 that opposed …

The ruling doesn't preclude the MTA from redrafting its rules on acceptable ad language to promote civility while providing for constitutionally protected speech, the judge wrote. Pamela Geller, the executive director of the pro-Israel group behind the …

"Disallowing a pro-Israel ad was clearly a politically correct, politically motivated denial of free speech," said Pamela Geller, the group's executive director. The MTA said in a statement that it was reviewing the opinion and "is evaluating its …

I am "crowing"? These tools should be crowing. It's their victory. too.

Note the Puff Ho's headline — they cannot bring themselves to call the ad what it is, pro-Israel (even the NY TImes did). You can practically hear the Puff Ho's head exploding in this moronic and inaccurate report. With the exception of the NY Times and NY1, not one of these tools called for comment.

On her blog, Geller crows, "Freedom, freedom, freedom …… the sweet, delicious taste of it. This is a great victory for the First Amendment. The freedom of speech is increasingly threatened in the U.S. in recent years—the Left and Islamic supremacists are doing all they can to rule honest discussion of Islamic jihad violence and Jew-hatred out of the realm of acceptable public discourse. Judge Engelmayer has struck a huge blow against this sinister authoritarian effort and for the freedom of speech that is the cornerstone of all our freedoms."

"The AFDI Ad is not only protected speech—it is core political speech. The Ad expresses AFDI’s pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and implicitly calls for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict. The AFDI Ad is, further, a form of response to political ads on the same subject that have appeared in the same space. As such, the AFDI Ad is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment." Judge Engelmayor's ruling today

(“At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.”)

"The Court, therefore, analyzes plaintiffs’ claim that MTA violated the First Amendment in rejecting the AFDI Ad “against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

Whatever weight might be assigned to the governmental interest in banning demeaning speech on the exterior of New York City buses on an even-handed basis, there is no good reason for protecting some individuals and groups, but not others, from such abuse. MTA’s no- demeaning standard, as currently formulated, is, therefore, inconsistent with the First Amendment.

To be sure, there are likely adherents to Jihad who are non-Muslims, such that the Ad canliterally be read to assail as savages all adherents to Jihad regardless of their religion—much as there assuredly are many adherents to Islam who do not accept Jihad, at least when defined as a violent crusade against enemies generally, or against Israel specifically. But, realistically, when it is read as a reasonable person would, the AFDI Ad plainly depicts Muslims—the primary adherents to this tenet of Islam—as “savages.”

Pamela Geller, Robert Muise (AFLC), David Yerushalmi (AFLC) and Robert Spencer

AFDI triumphed in our lawsuit against the NYC MTA's ban on our pro-Israel ad. We won on all points. Straight down the line. Judge Engelmayer wrote a wonderful opinion. Brilliant. And AFDI is now on the law books. Freedom, freedom, freedom …… the sweet, delicious taste of it.

This is a great victory for the First Amendment. The freedom of speech is increasingly threatened in the U.S. in recent years — the Left and Islamic supremacists are doing all they can to rule honest discussion of Islamic jihad violence and Jew-hatred out of the realm of acceptable public discourse. Judge Engelmayer has struck a huge blow against this sinister authoritarian effort and for the freedom of speech that is the cornerstone of all our freedoms.

Illustrating the MTA’s inconsistency, Engelmayer noted that “under MTA’s no-demeaning standard, an advertiser willing to pay for the privilege is today at liberty to place a demeaning ad on the side or back of a city bus that states any of the following: ‘Southerners are bigots’; ‘Upper West Siders are elitist snobs’; ‘Fat people are slobs’; ‘Blondes are bimbos’; ‘Lawyers are sleazebags’; or ‘The store clerks at Gristedes are rude and lazy.’”

“In light of that, disallowing a pro-Israel ad was clearly a politically correct, politically motivated denial of free speech,” said Pamela Geller, Executive Director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. “As such, Judge Engelamyer’s decision is crucial not just for AFDI and the MTA, but for the freedom of speech in general,” “The AFDI case has set a key legal precedent for the freedom of speech and won a great victory for the First Amendment.”

Geller added: “The freedom of speech is increasingly threatened in the U.S. in recent years — the Left and Islamic supremacists are doing all they can to rule honest discussion of Islamic jihad violence and Jew-hatred out of the realm of acceptable public discourse. Judge Engelmayer has struck a huge blow against this sinister authoritarian effort and for the freedom of speech that is the cornerstone of all our freedoms. Truth will not be suppressed or embargoed.”

"This is an important case with serious constitutional ramifications for free speech not only in New York, but across the country," said Robert Muise, co-founder of American Freedom Law Center. "This opinion is extremely well-written, well-considered and will go down as an important decision protecting Free Speech on government property."

AFLC Victory: New York Federal Court Strikes Down “Demeaning” Speech Restriction; MTA Must Run Advertisement Opposing Jihad and Supporting Israel

New York, New York (July 20, 2012) — Earlier today, Federal Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) restriction on “demeaning” speech was unconstitutional. The MTA had refused to run an anti-jihad advertisement that, according to the MTA, referred to Israel’s enemies as savages who engaged in jihad. The MTA flagged the advertisement that was set to run on the exterior of its buses, claiming that it violated the MTA’s policy against displaying “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.”

The court struck down the MTA’s speech restriction as a violation of the First Amendment because the MTA, as a governmental agency, was permitting politically controversial speech, even demeaning speech, but not speech that demeaned specific groups or individuals that fit within the MTA’s protected classes (in this case, Muslims embracing savage jihad).

This ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer, challenging the speech restriction and requesting that the court strike it down and order the MTA to run the advertisement.

The specific advertisement, which sparked the controversy, states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

This advertisement was offered as a direct response to an anti-Israel advertisement that was displayed on MTA property by a pro-Palestine group. The MTA approved the anti-Israel advertisement, which portrayed the Palestinians as being on the side of “peace and justice.” However, the MTA rejected AFDI’s advertisement, claiming that it violated its “demeaning” speech restriction.

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The court’s ruling is exactly right. As a governmental agency that is subject to the requirements of the Constitution, the MTA cannot allow speech on the controversial subject of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and then pick and choose which messages are acceptable and which are not based on the content of the message or the viewpoint of the speaker. By doing so, the MTA is violating a fundamental principle of the First Amendment.”

As argued in the lawsuit, the MTA is mandated as a governmental agency to comply with federal and state laws, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the government from making content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech.

David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, noted: “The court found that our client’s advertisement attacking savages who engage in jihad against Israel could be understood to be demeaning to those Muslims who support violent jihad against Israel. But the response to that is – so what? And that is effectively what the court said. The First Amendment is not designed to protect just polite, politically correct speech that offends no one. The First Amendment was specifically designed to protect those who dare challenge the political orthodoxy by quite rationally linking Islam’s sharia-mandated jihad against the ‘infidel’ Christians and Jews who dare occupy any part of the world that Islam claims as its own.”

Yerushalmi added, “Indeed, we have just recently learned how even the FBI and the military are afraid to investigate connections between Islam's jihad and violence, and it was this fear and politically correct censorship by FBI agents that permitted Major Hasan to carry-on a dialogue about jihad against infidels with the known terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki until Hassan ultimately acted on his sharia-mandated jihad and murdered 13 Americans and wounded 29 others.”

SIOA!

Resources

About us

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI)
The American Freedom Defense Initiative is a new organization launched by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Our objective is to go on the offensive when legal, academic, legislative, cultural, sociological, and political actions are taken to dismantle our basic freedoms and values.